- (1.) WE have heard Sri Mukesh Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the Respondents.
(2.) IN this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to decide the renewal application of the Petitioner, submitted on 30.03.2011, (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) for grant of mining lease in accordance with law, expeditiously. (ii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. In paras 3 and 4, the Petitioner has stated as follows: 3. That the Petitioner, was granted a mining lease of sand, on 24.10.2007, in form MM -3, under Chapter -II of the 1963 Rules, for a period of three year, for an area known as Plot No. Rapti -2, tehsil Campierganj, Pargana Haveli, district Gorakhpur, measuring 20 acres. The said lease is to expire on 01.06.2011.
(3.) THAT the Petitioner, after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the 1963 Rules, applied in form MM -1 -A, on 30.03.2010, for the renewal of his mining lease of Plot No. Rapti -2, tehsil Campierganj, Pargana Haveli, district Gorakhpur, measuring 20 acres. 4. It is submitted that the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur is sitting tight over the application of the Petitioner for renewal of mining lease, and till date has not fixed priority and recommended the renewal of the lease of the Petitioner to the Directorate, Geology and Mining, Lucknow for obtaining a formal receipt as provided under the Government Order dated 27.05.2005, purportedly on account of interim orders passed in writ petition No. 3967 of 2010 (Misc. Bench) (Abdul Haq v. State of U.P. and Ors.), by which a Division Bench of the Lucknow Court, while admitting the writ petition, has formulated questions and expressed opinion as follows: We propose to adjudicate the following question in public interest: Whether Rule 6A as amended and incorporated in U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 read with Government Order dated 16.10.2004 is unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as it permits grant of mining lease by renewing the earlier one through negotiation? Keeping in view the fact that the two Full Bench judgments of this Court have been decided after considering the catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court prohibiting grant of lease through renewal without public auction, we restrain the State Government to grant mining lease through renewal or negotiation without publication in newspapers inviting open applications for public auction. We also stay the operation of the impugned orders dated 15.12.2009 and 13.01.2010 as contained in Annexures No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. We direct the opposite parties No. 1 to 4/State Government to make advertisement in newspapers with regard to grant of mining lease and proceed accordingly. The Rule in question as well as the Government Order shall not be given effect to by the State authorities.;